PACIFIC WORLD - The Institute of Buddhist Studies

Mochizuki: Pure Land Buddhism in China 279accordance with his vows, in that Pure Land which is even now in thatother direction. There his good roots will grow and increase, and he will beable to speedily attain the state of non-regression.The monk Jin’go of Silla wrote the Tamhyπn-gi Jesam-sagi (PrivateNotes on the Third Volume of the T’an-hsüan chi), which is in turn quotedin the eighth volume of Kembø’s Høsatsu-shø. There, Jin’go states that theTa-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun was composed based on another forged text, theChien-ch’a ching. Thus, it would naturally follow that the Ta-ch’eng ch’ihsinlun would be a forgery. The words chien-ch’a =appear to be atransliteration of the words chan-ts’a , so it would appear that Jin’gois saying that the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun was written based on the Chants’ashan-o Pao-yeh ching.Whatever the case may be, it is clear that from the very earliest days,both the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun and the Pao-yeh ching were regarded assimilar texts. Now, if we were to assume that the Ta-cheng ch’i-hsin lun wasthe composition of one of the masters in the Southern branch of the Ti-luntradition, then we would be obliged to acknowledge that the Chan-ts’ashan-o pao-yeh ching is from the hand of a master from this same school.These problems have already been discussed in detail in my work, theDaijø-kishin-ron no kenky¥ (A Study of the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun). If thisabove conclusion is accepted, then it is clear that the Pure Land faithcame to be viewed with increasing importance among the masters of theTi-lun tradition.